Open thread: Let’s celebrate New Year’s by giving up on the Constitution

posted at 8:31 pm on December 31, 2012 by Allahpundit

There may or may not be fiscal-cliff action tonight — a Senate vote of some sort is likely, a House vote is not — so here’s your thread for Congress-watching and/or holiday revelry. Either way, drinking is mandatory.

In lieu of a QOTD, let me leave you with an excerpt from the op-ed page of the liberal establishment’s flagship paper. 2012 was a banner year for them: The Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare and a younger, more diverse electorate delivered four more years to The One. The tectonic political realignment that they thought had happened four years ago might actually have happened this year. What’s left for a leftist to dream about after two victories as momentous as that? Jettisoning the final check on their power, I guess:

As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions…

Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.

As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

And that, my friends, is how America is finally Perfected. Let a thousand Wilsonian flowers bloom.

Thanks to all of you for reading these past 12 months. See you next year!

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

A liberal friend linked this article on FaceDURRRK, describing the Constitution as “American Scripture” and putting his contempt for it/both on full display. Brave soul that I’m sure he is, I’d expect him to fall back on “JUST KIDDING, GOSH, Y SO SERIOUS” if pressed to have the courage of his convictions and just admit his disregard for the supreme law of the land.

Why is it these constitution haters all have to point out how they are constitutional scholars of one kind or another? If they truly were scholars of the constitution, they would understand the constitution was nothing more than a brake on federal power. It has nothing to do with who wanted when. It’s designed limits on power are inherently timeless.

No sooner was the Constitution in place than our leaders began ignoring it. John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. Thomas Jefferson thought every constitution should expire after a single generation. He believed the most consequential act of his presidency — the purchase of the Louisiana Territory — exceeded his constitutional powers.

I started to answer this, but now I don’t see the point. The article is sophistry, and correcting it would mean rewriting it.

I’ll just avoid from now on clicking links to New York Times editorials, so that I don’t inflate their visitor numbers and help them sell advertising space on their website.

They can reject the Constitution all they want. I’ll always be there beating them over the head with a rolled up copy of it regardless. Sort of like a man correcting a pup for messing on the carpet only in this case I’m much more forgiving of the dog.

No way! Allidunce, an uber-Obamabot that posts at TH and is as stupid as they come (“like the proverbial broken clock, you might be right once a day”), actually responded to my list of the homicide rates from 1900-2011 (showing that we are at the lowest murder rate since 1909) with this:

“Homicide rates are down since the 90’s due almost in total to abortion. 20 yrs after abortion is legalized, homicides fall and keep falling. Because so many potential killers were never born.”

Weed should be legal. Legal; not taxed; handed out to children; given to elderly ladies; planted in community herb gardens; smoked regularly by the commander in chief (well, we have that last one already)

They can reject the Constitution all they want. I’ll always be there beating them over the head with a rolled up copy of it regardless. Sort of like a man correcting a pup for messing on the carpet only in this case I’m much more forgiving of the dog.

HotAirian on December 31, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Yes, well, they’ve been ignoring /re-writing the constitution for a LONG time, as the article so astutely points out. I don’t see why they’d go about fully repealing it, when they can simply invent new definitions of words and find penumbras whenever they need an excuse to expand the definitions even more.

But sure, why not just end the farce and have an up and down vote on repealing the constitution?

reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country

What’s to compel us to abide by this course of action if there is no constitution? Or do you want to keep the parts that force me to abide by the considered-judgment-course-of-action of this person? It’s the kind of magic thinking that believes you can deem a building a “gun free zone” and save yourself the hassle of having to defend the building.

Weed should be legal. Legal; not taxed; handed out to children; given to elderly ladies; planted in community herb gardens; smoked regularly by the commander in chief (well, we have that last one already)

If any of you do decide to read the Allidunce Anthology, make sure to read the comments. It has become the “unofficial-official” global depository of Allidunce’s “wisdom.” People post her comments there and the term “Alliduncism,” which I coined years ago, has even made it to Saudi Arabia. Not kidding. lmfao